Karsondass Ranchhoddass v. CIT

83 ITR 1High Court1972#5844 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 46ASection 68

Judgments citing Karsondass Ranchhoddass v. CIT

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1517/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Shree Cement Limited Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Admin Block Masuda Road, Income Tax, Beawar [Raj.] , H. O. Beawar, Central Circle, Ajmer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 8796 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5945/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., Circle-7(1), 14-C, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6 Tilak Marg, Pin 1100 02 New Delhi Pin: 1100 01 Pan No. Aabcd7933P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, SumitFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., Circle-7(1), 14-C, Sagar Apartments, New Delhi 6 Tilak Marg, PIN 1100 02 New Delhi PIN: 1100 01 PAN No. AABCD7933P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lalchandani, Shivam Yadav, Advs. and Nischay Khandelwal, CA Department by: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing: 06.03.2025 Date of pronouncement: 04.06.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the Revenu…

BHARAT K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3), MUMBAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4648/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…However, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, vide para-14 of the order, upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kesavdas Ranchhod Das V/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 as well as Chainrup Sampatram V/s CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 while arriving at such a conclusion. The bench held that an inactivity or lull in the business of the assessee for some years cannot conclusively dislodge the claim of the assessee that it w…

BHARAT K SHETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2253/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…However, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, vide para-14 of the order, upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Kesavdas Ranchhod Das V/s CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (1975) 100 ITR 706 as well as Chainrup Sampatram V/s CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 while arriving at such a conclusion. The bench held that an inactivity or lull in the business of the assessee for some years cannot conclusively dislodge the claim of the assessee that it w…

M/S. NANDA MINT & PINE CHEMICALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 3830/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: 1. That the
Section 37Section 40A(3)

…effected. The plant and machinery have to be maintained and the personal employed have to be paid, office and factory have to be kept in a running condition. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Karsondas Ranchoddass, 83 ITR 1, wherein it has been explained that “even if the business dealings have not been carried out by the assessee during the year still the loss incurred during the year was required to be allowed if the business establishment by itself existed”. We also note that in the assessment year 2013-14, in the similar circumstances, the Revenue has allowed the e…

M/S. NANDA MINT & PINE CHEMICALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 3829/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: 1. That the
Section 37Section 40A(3)

…effected. The plant and machinery have to be maintained and the personal employed have to be paid, office and factory have to be kept in a running condition. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Karsondas Ranchoddass, 83 ITR 1, wherein it has been explained that “even if the business dealings have not been carried out by the assessee during the year still the loss incurred during the year was required to be allowed if the business establishment by itself existed”. We also note that in the assessment year 2013-14, in the similar circumstances, the Revenue has allowed the e…

MULTI ACT TRADE & INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 1338/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Multi Act Trade & The Income Tax Officer, Investments Pvt. Ltd., Ward- 2(2)(3), Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Mumbai - 400072 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm0157E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 14Section 143Section 143(2)

…to the copies of balance sheet and cash flow statement of the company as on 31st March 2018 in order to substantiate his contention. The Ld. counsel further relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Karsondas Ranchhoddas vs. CIT 83 ITR 1, submitted that when there is a temporary lull in the business, expenditure incurred in the intervening period cannot be disallowed. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since there is no material change in the facts of the present case, the present appeal may be sent back to the AO for deciding the same afresh. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Depar…

CERES CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL SERVIECS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3266/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Ceres Capital & Dy. Cit-12(1)(2), Mumbai, Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ B-404, Country Park, Opp. Room No. 223, Mumbai - Vs. Tata Ssl, Dattapada Road, 400 020. Borivali(E), Mumbai-400066 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaecc0126C

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Sindhu, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rred by the assessee in the course of its business could not be disallowed for the said reason. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. A.R relied on the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Karsondas Ranchhoddass Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1 (Bom) and that of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC). 6. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. D.R that as the assessee had not carried out any business during the year, therefore, the lo…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5652/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ent case. This case has been applied in CIT v. Vellore Electric Corpn. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 529 (Mad.) where it has been pithily noted that maintenance and establishment is the indication of intention to resume business. In Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 1 (Born.) it was noted that there were two periods of activity before and after the interregnum or period of inactivity which was indicative that the business was nevertheless continued. We are in complete agreement with the view taken 4 by the ITAT that the present case is an example of a lull in business and not cessation in business.” 11. In the…

SISTAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1256/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sistas Private Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, Mahatma Gandhi Vs. Income Tax (Ods)-2(3), Road, 3Rd Floor, Shetty Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. House Mumbai-400023. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs5758E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prasad Bapat, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Bapat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 254

…n Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT, (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). Sistas Private Ltd. squarely applies to the instant case. In the instant case, while making the disallowance of expenses neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has bothered to look into the specific accounts and find fault with it. The books of the accounts of the appellant which are audite…

SISTAS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3847/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sistas Private Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 101, Mahatma Gandhi Vs. Income Tax (Ods)-2(3), Road, 3Rd Floor, Shetty Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. House Mumbai-400023. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs5758E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prasad Bapat, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prasad Bapat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 24Section 254

…n Chettiar v. CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddass v. CIT, (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah v. CIT, (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). Sistas Private Ltd. squarely applies to the instant case. In the instant case, while making the disallowance of expenses neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has bothered to look into the specific accounts and find fault with it. The books of the accounts of the appellant which are audite…

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6915/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Amogh M. Ghaisas (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

…for the assessee filed a long list of following decision. (i) CIT Vs Baharat Nidhi Ltd , 60 ITR 520 (Punjab), (ii) Mrs Sarojini Rajah Vs CIT 71 ITR 504 (Madras), (iii) V.VE. Vairavan Chettiar Vs. CIT, 72 ITR 114(Madras), (iv) Karsondas Ranchhoddass Vs. CIT, 83 ITR 1 (Bombay), (v) Hindustan Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 124 ITR 561 (Bombay), (vi) CIT vs. Ganga Properties Ltd, 199 ITR 94 (Calcutta), (vii) Lakshmi Narayan Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 205 CTR 359 (Kerala), 3 ITA No. 6915/M/11 & 5131/M/14 - M/s Bakhtawar Construction Pvt. Ltd. (viii) Akarsh Printers Ltd. Vs. ITO, Calcutta Tribunal ITA No. 2279 of…

DCIT, CIR-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PRS METALIKS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue ITA No

ITA 450/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Sainia.Y 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Loyalka, FCA, ld.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member A.Y 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Cir-2(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s. PRS Metaliks Ltd PAN AADCP9239J [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by : Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DR Respondent by : Shri Dilip Loyalka, FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 17-10-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10-01-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This is appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT-(A),- I, Kolkata dated 06-01-2016 for the assessment year 2012…

ASST CIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. BASONS INVESTMENTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.103/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Basons Investments Private Ltd. Income Tax 9(2)(1) B/21, Monarch Nagar बनाम/ Road No.665A,6Th Floor J.B.Nagar, Andheri (East) Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb-4095-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rakesh Joshi ,Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Jenardhanan, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)

…61 on 18/02/2015. The revenue has raised following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the interest income was assessable as business income relying on decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Karsondas Ranchhoddass (83 ITR 1) ignoring the fact that in that case there was a period of inactivity between two periods of activity, which was not the fact in the present one”. 2. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on account of interest on the ground that since interest income had been assessed as business income, such expenses were allowable ignoring the findin…

MULTI ACT TRADE & INVESTMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 240/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Satish R ModyFor Respondent: Shri. Kailash Kanojiya
Section 14ASection 48Section 56Section 57

…ry lull in the business, 6 Multi Act Trade & Investments P. Ltd., ITA no.240/Mum./2014 expenditure incurred in the intervening period cannot be disallowed Ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in 83 ITR 1 Karsondas Ranchhoddas Vs. CIT. 6. Upon careful consideration we find that it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that assessee has shown substantial income in assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. It is also the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that there was a temporary lull in the business activity. However he has cla…

DOLPHIN OFFSHORE SHIPPING LTD,BELAPUR vs. ASST CIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6323/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)

…an Chettair vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 114, 119 (Mad); General Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1935)3 ITR 350, 355 (Mad); CIT vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 520 (Punj); Inderchand Hari Ram vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 437, 442-3 (All); Karsondas Ranchhoddas vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 1, 20 (Bom); Mrs. Sarojini Rajah vs. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 504 (Mad). 8.1 However it is found that the assessee failed to file before the A.O. and the learned CIT(A) the material or evidence in respect of the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- as narrated at para 5 here-in-above. Therefore, the case of the assessee is distinguishable from the decision relied on by…

AMBIENCE BUSINESS SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6502/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…business during two years before the and two years after the assessment year under consideration. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karsondass Ranchhoddass vs CIT, 83 ITR 1(Bom.), therefore, this ground of appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. As regards the second ground of appeal, the Ld. Counsel submitted that this ground of appeal is misconceived. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to tax the income from letting office premises amounting to Rs. 62,05,500/-under the head income from the house propert…

DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5216/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…business during two years before the and two years after the assessment year under consideration. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karsondass Ranchhoddass vs CIT, 83 ITR 1(Bom.), therefore, this ground of appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. As regards the second ground of appeal, the Ld. Counsel submitted that this ground of appeal is misconceived. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to tax the income from letting office premises amounting to Rs. 62,05,500/-under the head income from the house propert…

DCIT CEN CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE ADVERTISING P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5215/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…business during two years before the and two years after the assessment year under consideration. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karsondass Ranchhoddass vs CIT, 83 ITR 1(Bom.), therefore, this ground of appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. As regards the second ground of appeal, the Ld. Counsel submitted that this ground of appeal is misconceived. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to tax the income from letting office premises amounting to Rs. 62,05,500/-under the head income from the house propert…

ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. AMBIENCE BUSINESS SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8945/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Raja B.SinghFor Respondent: Shri. A. Ramachandran &
Section 143(3)Section 24(1)Section 30Section 37Section 57

…business during two years before the and two years after the assessment year under consideration. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Karsondass Ranchhoddass vs CIT, 83 ITR 1(Bom.), therefore, this ground of appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. As regards the second ground of appeal, the Ld. Counsel submitted that this ground of appeal is misconceived. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to tax the income from letting office premises amounting to Rs. 62,05,500/-under the head income from the house propert…

Karsondass Ranchhoddass v. CIT (83 ITR 1) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax